Wednesday, August 8, 2012

How Civil Unions Destroyed Marriage In America

On this blog today I found an excellent article which exemplifies for me the "Wake Up Call" that seems to be rapidly spreading through Catholic circles concerning the fascist nature and tactics of the same sex pseudo-marriage movement, in the wake of L'Affair Chik-Fil-A.

UPDATE 8.16.12: The terrorist attack on Family Research Center yesterday serves to make the above point in an entirely new and chilling way.Wake up, Catholics.Wake up, people of good faith.This is a terrorist movement we are dealing with.

We are waking up.

My prayer is that we are not waking up too late.

I reproduce my response below, from the comments section, to a decent, compassionate, Christian commentator "Anonymous", whose comments provide an insight into why it is that we now stand on the very knife's edge of surrendering the power to rewrite the marriage laws into the hands of a very dark, very violent, very fascist movement determined to use those laws to indoctrinate children into homosexualist anti-values in public schools, without the slightest ability on the part of the children or the parents to do a single thing about it.
The tactic is an old one.

Ask the Trojans.

About the Horse.

****************************************

"I think much of the support for redefining marriage comes from a sense of compassion for the rights of others."

>> Exactly. It was framed as a civil rights issue from the beginning, by very smart and committed people who understand how to push the right buttons in an electorate (as well as a Catholic Church) which has a long and proud history of responding to civil rights issues.

Of course, it never was a civil rights issue at all. I will prove it in a moment.

A: "However, truth matters as well,"

>> Truth can never be opposed to truth. If it were ever the case that a civil right was being denied SSA individuals, then truth would be on the side of the same sex marriage movement.

Truth has never been on the side of the SSM movement, because there was never a civil rights issue involved in the first place.

I will prove it in a moment.

A: "and the truth is that the sexual union of a man and a woman potentially can produce a child. There is a level of responsibility that exists in this particular type of relationship that is unique because of that. The commitment made by a man and a woman in marriage provides the best situation for raising the children produced by their sexual union in a stable and loving relationship."

>> Now *that* is the truth. Every syllable.

A: "On the other hand, there are rights that should be available to those in loving and committed relationships, but I would like to suggest that these relationships extend to a broader group than those in sexually active relationships. There are widows who live together after the deaths of their husbands, adult siblings who form a household, divorced mothers who support each other in raising their children together who just as much as same sex couple would benefit from many of the rights given to married couples."

>> Sigh.

There it is.

This is why we now stand at the very precipice of handing the power to rewrite the marriage laws to a movement that is implacably determined to employ those laws as the basis for sophisticated indoctrination of every public school pupil in America in homosexualist anti-values, *values which are profoundly in opposition to both Faith, and reason.*

The SSM movement insists that, somehow, the rights society has always extended to married couples,, *ought to be extended to ____________ (fill in whatever category you are sympathetic to, it doesn't matter which)........once the idea that marriage *rights* ought to be given to *non-married* people, the list will have no end. It cannot possibly have an end, because the foundational assumption of SSM has been implicitly granted, and that point is this:

There is no such thing as marriage!

Marriage is simply another word for Federal Friendship Benefits. Or widow benefits. Or couples benefits. Or any other kind of Federal benefits.

Marriage is simply a word that refers to (for now) two *people* who want to *commit* to each other (until they don't).

*Having bought into this, defeat is utterly certain*.

The SSM movement *always knew it, it was their strategy from the beginning to manipulate the compassion of people of Faith so they would surrender their religious liberty, and their children as well, before finally waking up to the scam- too late.

Here we get to the point where I can demonstrate the proof I promised earlier, that SSM was *never in any way about civil rights*.

A: "That does not mean we should redefine marriage to include all these loving and committed relationships, but perhaps we do need to find a way to extend rights without diminishing the importance of marriage for the stability and future of our children and our society."

>> God bless you and your Christian heart, Anonymous. You have been duped, effortlessly.

*All of those rights were specifically granted, in the form of civil unions, and the very next morning the lawsuit challenging marriage on 14th Amendment grounds was filed*.

*It was always planned that way*.

Because, you see, if the law limits marriage to gender-complementary couples *for good reason*- the very reasons you outline above!- then there *is no civil rights question involved for same sex couples concerning marriage!

*But*- and please admire the true sophistication and ferocious intelligence behind this ploy- *but* as soon as the principle has been established, in law, of the entitlement of same sex couples to the *rights and privileges previously extended by society only to married couples*.........

Now there *IS* a civil rights issue!

If they are entitled to the same rights and privileges, *there can be no basis at law to deny them the title MARRAIGE, since marriage has been defined out of existence in the very act of extending its benefits to non-married couples!

Of course these lawsuits succeeded.

It was always intended to dupe softhearted and compassionate and decent Catholics (and others) like you, Anonymous- into proposing the very solution which would doom marriage altogether.

It is my sad duty to have to tell you this.

It is my even sadder duty to tell you that in a better age, Catholic Bishops- REAL CATHOLIC BISHOPS- would have seen this coming ten miles off (that is what a Shepherd does- he sees the wolf before the flock does).......

Instead our bishops were completely blind.

As blind as you.

But it is not your fault.

It is, however, their fault.

May God, through the merciful intercession of His angels and saints, sealed with the irresistible plea of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, protect us now.

re: Truth can never be opposed to truth. If it were ever the case that a civil right was being denied SSA individuals, then truth would be on the side of the same sex marriage movement. Truth has never been on the side of the SSM movement, because there was never a civil rights issue involved in the first place."

Justice John Paul Stevens said during a 60 minutes interview, that Same Sex Marriage is the civil rights issue of this century. I assume Justice Stevens has some basic understanding what a civil rights issue is and what it is not. Moreover, SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right 14 times. Felons, interracial couples, child rapists and abusers, spousals abusers cannot be denied their civil right to marry. If SCOTUS turns down the Prop 8 appeal, in September, this will show that marriage is indeed a right, that cannot be voted away. Are you a betting man on how SCOTUS will rule?

There are many jurists who share the Justice's opinion, but that is not the relevant binding precedent here.

The relevant binding precedent (acknowledged as such in the two most recent Federal DOMA rulings) is Baker v. Nelson.

It is the binding ruling of the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the private opinion of Justice Stevens, that there exists no Constitutional right to same sex marriage.

Marriage is indeed a fundamental right, but marriage is the union of the two complementary genders of our species. The alternative proposal- that a constitutional right exists to same sex marriage- was rejected by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson.

Inmates, child rapists, abusers, spousal abusers, etc, are all entitled to marriage under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, so long as they can find an eligible spouse that will have them.

The wives and possible children of these rapists, abusers, spopusal abusers, etc, are free individual citizens, protected by law against any evil attempt on the part opf anyone to punsih them for the crimes of their fathers.

I am, in a manner ofmpeasking, a betting man, since I work and donate to protect marriage.

My bet is that SCOTUS will take the Prop 8 case (although Justice Reinhardt did everything but go down on his knees begging them not to), and that the decision will uphold Prop 8.

Do you mean Windsor v. USA and Persen v. OPM where DOMA was struck down? Pedersen v. OPM, which was filed in Connecitcut, has also been appealed both to the Second Circuit with a request for an expedited appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Second Circuit is the only federal circuit in which all states permit same-sex couples to marry” and that this circuit is one that has not addressed the level of scrutiny required for laws classifying gays and lesbians.

Baker, v. Nelson is not relevant because unlike the recent Hawaii marriage case which is more on point about the right TO marry (states right MN, Baker v Nelson) as opposed to couples who already are married by the state. Different questions entirely with DOMA, federal issue, not a state issue, and the couples are already married.

You said "Marriage is the union of two complementary genders of our species." This is not true. There are states (and foreign countries) in the US where same-sex couples are married according to CIVIL law. A more true statement is that marriage also includes complementary genders. New York for example, is a state that permits same sex couples to marry. Marriage is not restricted in NY to complementary genders.

My crystal ball says SCOTUS will not take the Prop 8 case, because it is limited to only to California. I wish they would, but I don't think they will. My bet is a 5 to 4 in support of marriage equality.

As you well know, Unknown, we have two directly contradictory arguments at the front door of SCOTUS (actually three, but the Hawaii decision is actually logical and consistent with precedent, so we'll leave that one aside for now).

First, the Ninth Circuit wishes to hold that the people have no right to amend their constitution, since the amendment had no rational basis other than animus.

This ruling is absurd on its face, and all parties to it admit the fact. Both Reinhardt in his ruling, and just today Olson and Boles in their filing today at SCOTUS, *beg the Supreme Court not to take the Prop 8 case*.

They do this because they already know they will lose (anyone who reads Justice Ginzburg's opinion on Obamacare can see the utter disaster which lies in wait for pseudo-marriage if SCOTUS takes the Prop 8 case. It won;t be close).

Then we have the recent anti-DOMA rulings, *both of which explicitly acknowldge Baker v. Nelson as binding precedent, and which therefore explicitly acknowledge that there is no Federal right to same sex marriage*.

It is quite understandable why the pseudo-marriage movement is squirming here. The foundational illogic of the same sex marriage proposition has been exposed, as it supposed to be, in its long progress through the courts.

The mere fact that a given jurisdiction might pass a law requiring that lions are fish does nothing to change the biological reality that they are not.

The mere fact that a given jurisdiction might pass a law that mothers are not female, or fathers are not male, similarly exists only as a monument to the capacity of human beings to delude themselves.

Same sex marriage stands at the very brink of ruinous defeat- it has already massively lost with the voters, and it is about to be utterly crushed at the SCOTUS.

The question before SCOTUS is if Prop 8 violates due process and equal protection guarantees in the US Constitution. As determined in Romer v. Evans, you cannot pass laws or amendments based on Animus. "Prejudice rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."- J. Kennedy.

The DOMA issue before SCOTUS is not about granting a right to marry, the plaintiffs already are. Do you agree with this "already married claim" that I am stating as fact? Without creating any new constitutional right for gays and lesbians to get married, the First Circuit Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to intrude on the choice of states — like Massachusetts — to create such a right under state law. Therefore, the issue is not about the right to marry. The federal benefits at issue are keyed to legal marriages. They are legal marriages, they already are married. Its the federal benefits, at issue. Baker v. Nelson said nothing about Federal Benefits for legally married same sex couples. Do you agree with this fact?

If marriage is all about the children, why don't we make having children a condition to getting married? If you get married, you pledge to do your best to have a child. If you don't have one by the end of 3 years of marriage, then you go to a doctor to find out why and to get help. If you have no reason for why you haven't had a child, you have 2 more years to get one. If you make it to 5 years without a child, your marriage is converted to a 'civil union' and you lose all the benefits that government provides to marriages, ie the right to claim SS benefits when your spouse dies, the right to not pay inheritance taxes, the right to claim your spouse's body after their death, the right to make decisions for your spouse should they ever be incapable of doing so for themselves. Hmm.. No? This isn't what you want?

"If marriage is all about the children, why don't we make having children a condition to getting married?"

>> Since it were impractical to hire fortune tellers or tea-leave readers for every couple, the state's interest in securing the unique benefits of marriage- the next generation, best nurtured- are adequately served by simply bringing the genders together.

Not every union will be fruitful- does;t have to be.

As long as marriage unites spouses of the complementary genders....nature will take care of the rest.

"If you get married, you pledge to do your best to have a child. If you don't have one by the end of 3 years of marriage, then you go to a doctor to find out why and to get help. If you have no reason for why you haven't had a child, you have 2 more years to get one. If you make it to 5 years without a child, your marriage is converted to a 'civil union' and you lose all the benefits that government provides to marriages, ie the right to claim SS benefits when your spouse dies, the right to not pay inheritance taxes, the right to claim your spouse's body after their death, the right to make decisions for your spouse should they ever be incapable of doing so for themselves. Hmm.. No? This isn't what you want?"

>> This Rube Goldberg Federal Ministry of Procreation could only appeal to a totalitarians.

It really is so simple, we have had it figured out for five thousand years.

"If you get married, you pledge to do your best to have a child. If you don't have one by the end of 3 years of marriage, then you go to a doctor to find out why and to get help"Doctor may say "Sorry, you're too old, I've never understood why the elderly are allowed to marry anyway.."

And yet, prison inmates with no chance of coitus with a married opposite sex spouse are allowed to marry, alas because marriage is a fundamental right. Doctor says "We must do away with those pesky fundamental rights..." And furthermore, no couple should be able to use modern reproductive medical technologies to meet this hypothetical 5 year requirement... Doctor says "Even though this will put me out of business." The procreative process should be based on natural law, and Catholic bishops should supervise to make sure it is done correctly.

Felons had to go to court in order to enjoy their constitutional right to marry. Lesbians and Gays are trying to have their rights codified as well. They already have a constitutional right to same-sex behavior protected. For most people, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, and the 2nd Circuit has asked SCOTUS to weigh in on the appropriate level of scrutiny, these lower courts have applied a rational basis + standard.

Thank you, WE AGREE, not all unions, same-sex or other wise will be fruitful. They don't have to be.

Since I am, for example, not a particularly compelling example of cultivated physique and chiseled, Bard-Pitt-like features, it is perhaps regrettably the case that Miss Universe will decline my fervent suit for her hand in marriage.

No constitutional rights have been infringed by her rejection of my suit.

Marriage consists- exactly- in the union of the two complementary genders in stable, long term relationships from which children commonly result, and within which they are best nurtured.

The state has no interest whatsoever in regulating the myriad other forms of relationship- including those based on "attraction".

I would argue that a few couples are actually "attracted" to their spouse. Indeed, some same sex couples who are actually married in the 7 US jurisdictions that recognize their marriages in CIVIL law - are attracted to their spouse too. I would further argue that some religions recognize, honor or perform same sex unions and same sex marriages (where legal under civil law). There are also religions that do not recognize same sex marriages. Some may try, but we usually don't codify ones religious views into civil law. Some people would still say interracial marriages are not real marriages. But what they think doesn't really matter under Civil law.

Baker v. Nelson never said that states could not marry homosexuals. There was no Constitutional question at the time Baker v. Nelson was decided regarding a right to marry. So then the court will ask what has changed? I argue that the real question is if doctrinal developments have changed since Baker v. Nelson. Surprisingly, there are legally married same sex couples! Since Baker, v Nelson, we have had Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. Doctrinal developments merit reconsideration when there are changing facts and circumstances. For example, when the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments (which gave people equal protection under the law and the right to vote regardless of race). Loving v. Virginia. granting interracial couples the right to marry. Before that there was no right to marry for interracial couples, so you cannot hang your hat on Baker v. Nelson. Lawrence v. Texas overruled Bowers v. Hardwick providing constitutional protection in a right to privacy for homosexuals. See what happened to the Bowers v. Hardwick precedent? Even Justice Scalia acknowledged a potential right to marriage for homosexuals in Lawrence v. Texas. Baker v. Nelson is stale and a soft precedent (one not fully argued before the court) at that.

Including same-sex couples in the definition of marriage changes nothing for opposite sex couples, in fact there is a greater social good for families of same-sex couples under civil marriage. Moreover, we are better off as a society when we recognize the equality of others similarly situated as ourselves.

U: "I would argue that a few couples are actually "attracted" to their spouse. Indeed, some same sex couples who are actually married in the 7 US jurisdictions that recognize their marriages in CIVIL law - are attracted to their spouse too."

>> This is quite likely. It is also irrelevant. Many unmarried couples are attracted, many married couples are not.

So attraction is not an objectively foundational component of marriage.

U:"I would further argue that some religions recognize, honor or perform same sex unions and same sex marriages (where legal under civil law). There are also religions that do not recognize same sex marriages. Some may try, but we usually don't codify ones religious views into civil law. Some people would still say interracial marriages are not real marriages. But what they think doesn't really matter under Civil law."

>> Since the question has never had anything whatever to do with religion, we completely agree that nothing you typed above is relevant in any way at all to to marriage as it is defined under civil law.

U:"Baker v. Nelson never said that states could not marry homosexuals."

>> Quite true. Baker v. Nelson simply said that there exists no Federal- that is to say, no constitutional- right to same sex marriage.

U:"There was no Constitutional question at the time Baker v. Nelson was decided regarding a right to marry."

>> There still is no constitutional question. The question has been decided. It is acknowledged in both recent anti-DOMA Federal rulings as binding precedent.

There exists no constitutional right to same sex marriage.

U: "So then the court will ask what has changed? I argue that the real question is if doctrinal developments have changed since Baker v. Nelson."

>> A very thin reed upon which to lean, as the recent hilarious gymnastics on the part of Reinhardt and the Dream Team, begging on their knees for SCOTUS not to subject their ridiculous slander of seven million California voters to the smackdown even the Dream Team and Reinhardt now clearly see they would receive from SCOTUS.

U:"Surprisingly, there are legally married same sex couples!"

>> We share our surprise in the face of this astonishing bit of legal folderol :-)

U: "Since Baker, v Nelson, we have had Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. Doctrinal developments merit reconsideration when there are changing facts and circumstances. For example, when the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments (which gave people equal protection under the law and the right to vote regardless of race). Loving v. Virginia. granting interracial couples the right to marry. Before that there was no right to marry for interracial couples, so you cannot hang your hat on Baker v. Nelson.

>> Neither can you hang your hat on Loving v. Virginia, since the same court that ruled in favor of Loving also ruled that there exists no right to same sex marriage, years later, in Baker v. Nelson.

Neither can you hang your hat on Romer, since Romer had nothing at all to do with marriage.

>> The right to privacy has precisely nothing to do with the right to marriage, or to Federal marriage benefits.

U: "See what happened to the Bowers v. Hardwick precedent? Even Justice Scalia acknowledged a potential right to marriage for homosexuals in Lawrence v. Texas. Baker v. Nelson is stale and a soft precedent (one not fully argued before the court) at that."

>> I agree that it is possible to overturn precedent. I disagree that it is possible to overturn precedent concerning marriage, by appeal to precedent concerning privacy rights.

The two cases are completely distinct.

It would be almost as logically absurd as to argue that since interracial marriage is right, then same sex marriage is right.

>> Quite to the contrary, it changes everything for every married couple, since under same sex marriage laws it becomes discriminatory to lobby for the interests of children in being raised by their own mother and father.

It gets worse.

It is also illegal to insist that mothers are exlculively female, that fathers are exclusively male, that there are no female husbands, no male wives, etc etc etc.

In other words, the consequences of same sex marriage laws are so instantaneously horrific for everyone, that even children will be immediately victimized, by imposed compulsory indoctrination in the above forms of mental illness, in public schools, at taxpayer expense.

U: "in fact there is a greater social good for families of same-sex couples under civil marriage."

>> It is quite true that same sex couples will benefit from the redefinition of marriage, into Federal Relationship Benefits.

Thieves also benefit from successful bank heists.

This is no reason to legalize armed robbery.

U: "Moreover, we are better off as a society when we recognize the equality of others similarly situated as ourselves."

>> In this we agree. But since there exists no objective equality between marriages and non-marriages, your point here supports the marriage defenders, and not the marriage redefiners.

You provide an excellent example of two distinct issues, marriage and the raising of child by their own mother and father. The good news is that when same sex couples marry, opposite sex couples are able to raise their own children as mother and father, just as the day before same-sex civil marriage. Now, if you want adoption law changed to take children away from same-sex couples, then you need a different law. Civil marriage law is not the tool that will stop same-sex couples from the raising of children or using reproductive technology. Sounds like you might approve of same-sex marriage if same-sex couples were forced to place their children into adoption, but these are separate and distinct issues, of which civil marriage law does not address. Civil marriage law does not change the fact, that children of same-sex couples are enrolled in the public school system. Again, a separate and distinct issue. Are you proposing a law that would segregate these children into a different school system from other children? I argue that nothing in marriage law will fix the parade of horribles you describe. In other words kicking your dog because your mad at the boss, does not fix the problem with your boss. It may make one feel great for a moment when the puppy yelps or is injured. So too is the case for those filled with animus towards the LGBT community. You can see this in the delight by some, of the idea of ripping children from same-sex couples and their families.

"Neither can you hang your hat on Loving v. Virginia, since the same court that ruled in favor of Loving also ruled that there exists no right to same sex marriage, years later, in Baker v. Nelson."

-Baker stands for the proposition that a state may use the traditional definition of marriage without violating equal protection. It does not preclude state sanctioned same sex marriage, as in evidence by the 7 jurisdictions that offer same sex civil marriage. What needs to be addressed by the SCOTUS, if like race, for most people sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic and not easily changeable. Is sexual orientation a status worthy of elevated scrutiny. DOMA has been determined to be unconstitutional because the the logic for the law fails under even the lower standard of rational basis.

Lawrence v. Texas established a constitutional right to privacy or behavior for homosexuals, that did not exist at the time of Baker v. Nelson. This created a new question. Justice Scalia properly raised a red flag in opposition to the ruling, that this could also mean an eventual right to same-sex marriage. So then, subsequent doctrinal developments severely weaken the already soft precedent of the facts that decided Baker v. Nelson. The question to be addressed now, is: "Does a fundamental right to marriage, also includes same-sex couples?" Do you agree that this is one key issue for SCOTUS to address?

U: "You provide an excellent example of two distinct issues, marriage and the raising of child by their own mother and father."

>> Your position fails to notice that the institution known as "marriage", is precisely that one, unique human relationship which unites mothers and fathers with their children in long-term, stable unions.

Since we have already established that society's interest in marriage- the next generation, best nurtured- does not require each and every union to be fruitful (indeed, how could it? No one can know in advance which unions will or won't be fruitful), we see that marriage exactly serves society's interest.

Other forms of relationship do not secure this unique benefit for society, and hence we see that these other forms of relationship are not marriages, and are not, therefore appropriate recipients of the benefits reserved to married couples.

U: "The good news is that when same sex couples marry, opposite sex couples are able to raise their own children as mother and father, just as the day before same-sex civil marriage."

>> This has already been shown to be false. Married couples in SSM jurisdictions immediately *lose* the ability to raise their children as they have done, precisely *because* the law will now require them to surrender their children for compulsory indoctrination in such absurd falsehoods as:

1. It is discriminatory to call husbands male.2. It is discriminatory to call mothers female.3. It is discriminatory to argue for laws which protect the interest of each child to be raised by their own mother and father.4. It is discriminatory to say that all brides are female.5. It is discriminatory to say that all grooms are male.

U: "Now, if you want adoption law changed to take children away from same-sex couples, then you need a different law. Civil marriage law is not the tool that will stop same-sex couples from the raising of children or using reproductive technology."

>> We agree. The marriage debate has nothing to do with adoption or reproductive technologies. Not a syllable you type above is at all relevant to the marriage debate.

U: "Sounds like you might approve of same-sex marriage if same-sex couples were forced to place their children into adoption,"

>> No. Same sex marriage is, like white blackness or round squareness, a contradiction in terms. There are no circumstances under which one might compromise and agree to white blackness, round squareness, or same sex marriage.

The only appropriate response to a legislative attempt to decree that two plus two to equal five, is the defeat of the political movement proposing such insanity.

There can be no compromise of any kind with such lunacy.

U: "but these are separate and distinct issues, of which civil marriage law does not address. Civil marriage law does not change the fact, that children of same-sex couples are enrolled in the public school system. Again, a separate and distinct issue. Are you proposing a law that would segregate these children into a different school system from other children?"

>> No. It has already been established that adoption is a separate question, unrelated to our discussion. Please try and limit the red herrings to a bare minimum.

U: "I argue that nothing in marriage law will fix the parade of horribles you describe. In other words kicking your dog because your mad at the boss, does not fix the problem with your boss. It may make one feel great for a moment when the puppy yelps or is injured. So too is the case for those filled with animus towards the LGBT community. You can see this in the delight by some, of the idea of ripping children from same-sex couples and their families."

>> The defense of marriage involves no animus toward anyone, except those who would insist that they have a right to impose a demonstrable falsehood on society.

U: -"Baker stands for the proposition that a state may use the traditional definition of marriage without violating equal protection. It does not preclude state sanctioned same sex marriage, as in evidence by the 7 jurisdictions that offer same sex civil marriage."

>> We agree. Baker establishes nothing about state's definition of marriage. It instead establishes that there exists no constitutional right to same sex marriage.

U: "What needs to be addressed by the SCOTUS, if like race, for most people sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic and not easily changeable."

>> This is a demonstrable falsehood. There exists zero scientific evidence of this, and plentiful empirical evidence to the contrary. Sexual preference often changes, and hence is nort an immutable characteristic.

This established, even if sexual orientation *were* an immutable characteristic, it would have not the slightest relevance to the question of marriage.

Certainly many heterosexuals experience an immutable sexual desire to couple with every member of the opposite sex they see.

This sexual orientation is neither desirable for society as a whole to encourage, nor is it relevant in any way to the question of marriage.

Sexual orientation is mutable and subjective- gender is immutable and objective.

Marriage is the union of the genders.

U: "Is sexual orientation a status worthy of elevated scrutiny."

>> No. It is not. The Hawaii DOMA ruling has this point exactly right.

U: "DOMA has been determined to be unconstitutional because the the logic for the law fails under even the lower standard of rational basis."

>> Completely false. DOMA is the law of the land. It is not unconstitutional, and the Hawaii decision correctly rejects both the notion of elevated scrutiny, and also the SSM claim on its merits, based on rational scrutiny.

Your above assertions are false.

U: "Lawrence v. Texas established a constitutional right to privacy or behavior for homosexuals, that did not exist at the time of Baker v. Nelson."

>> I have already pointed out, above; the logical fallacy of constructing a logical relationship between privacy rights and marriage.

No such logical connection exists.

Non sequitir.

Please do not advance this again, I am enjoying our exchange and would be saddened to conclude that it was futile, based on your continued raising of the same points in the face of refutation.

Deal with the refutation, please, or move on.

U: "This created a new question. Justice Scalia properly raised a red flag in opposition to the ruling, that this could also mean an eventual right to same-sex marriage."

>> Yes, he did. Justice Kennedy got the message, as the Dream Team already have grasped, and you will shortly.

U: "So then, subsequent doctrinal developments severely weaken the already soft precedent of the facts that decided Baker v. Nelson. The question to be addressed now, is: "Does a fundamental right to marriage, also includes same-sex couples?" Do you agree that this is one key issue for SCOTUS to address?"

>> Of course not. This question has laready been decided, as a matter of binding precedent.

It is binding precedent that there exists no constitutional right top same sex marriage.

Are you saying that because some people believe they can change their sexual orientation, that it is therefore true for all people, therefore, they should change in order to marry? I think most people believe their sexual orientation is pretty much fixed and it would be unreasonable to expect people to change in order to marry. However, religious belief is changeable, and therefore a more reasonable request for example. Perhaps you can share how changeable your sexual orientation might be. Are you aware of the difference between sexual preference and orientation? Please use the right terminology.

There is a question that if homosexual behavior is now protected under the constitution. Justice Scalia did not think it was refuted, just because you say so. It has not been resolved, contrary to your refuted claim. Even Olsen and Boies pointed this out. So please acknowledge the slippery slope argument presented by Justice Scalia as a valid question. If homosexual behavior is protected, why not also grant them a fundamental right to marry? You may not like the question, its not my issue, but it will be part of SCOTUS deliberations, like it or not. So you have not refuted it.

Let me ask you about people born inter-sex or dual gender, who should they be permitted to marry? What genders do they compliment if any? Is it as simple as pick one? If they can pick one, why can't homosexuals? Do you have a percentage of maleness or femaleness that should be codified into civil law as a requirement for marriage? Are they changing the definition of marriage for the rest of society?

You said "It is binding precedent that there exists no constitutional right top same sex marriage." The exact wording in Baker "dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." Did not mean a federal question could not arise in the future. You already essentially admitted this. Moreover, the ruling did not say there IS or IS NOT a right. SCOTUS left it to the states to decide. We are about to revisit this again next month with the SCOTUS appeals, DOMA and PROP 8. The fundamental right to marriage exists, the issue is if SCTOUS will extend it to all same sex couples in every state. Not just let the states determine if same-sex couples can marry as is the case now. So please acknowledge this so we can move on.

Actually, I'm done. I think we need to wait until SCOTUS makes the determination on whether or not to here the Prop 8 case. Please Hold this this thread open.. I'll be back in 2 months ...

U: "Are you saying that because some people believe they can change their sexual orientation, that it is therefore true for all people, therefore, they should change in order to marry?"

>> I am saying that sexual orientation is subjective and mutable, and hence cannot possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the objective and immutable characteristics of gender.

Sexual orientation is changeable, and hence can have nothing to do with the objective characteristics which determine eligibility for marriage.

Sexual orientation is subjective and mutable; gender is objective and immutable.

Marriage involves the union of the objective and immutable, complementary gend4rs of our species.

U: "I think most people believe their sexual orientation is pretty much fixed and it would be unreasonable to expect people to change in order to marry."

>> No one needs change any subjective and mutable characteristic in order to marry.

One can marry regardless of mutable and subjective characteristics, just so long as they can find an eligible spouse who will have them.

U: "However, religious belief is changeable, and therefore a more reasonable request for example. Perhaps you can share how changeable your sexual orientation might be. Are you aware of the difference between sexual preference and orientation? Please use the right terminology."

>> Irrelevant. One can marry regardless of orientation or preference, neither of which could be determined by objective means, since both are subjective and mutable.

Marriage is predicated upon the objective and immutable attribute of gender; marriage is the union of the two complementary genders of our species, and one need not inquire as to how one feels about one's orientation or preference or opinion or impulse.

U: "There is a question that if homosexual behavior is now protected under the constitution. Justice Scalia did not think it was refuted, just because you say so."

>> There is no question at all in this regard. Homosexual activity is protected under the constitution.

This has nothing at all to do with marriage.

U: "It has not been resolved, contrary to your refuted claim."

>> Yes it has. Lawrence has settled this. Your assertion is false.

U: "Even Olsen and Boies pointed this out. So please acknowledge the slippery slope argument presented by Justice Scalia as a valid question. If homosexual behavior is protected, why not also grant them a fundamental right to marry?"

>> Because there exists no logical connection whatever between homosexual action, and marriage.

Since you wanted evidence of the FRC's defamation of LGBT and since NOM is almost certainly not going to allow my rebuttal to my comment to be posted so it looks like there is no evidence, AND since I could not easily find an e-mail address with which to contact you privately, I will post the following here.

Perkins repeated the FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia,[29] saying that "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children."

There's your pedophilia link.

Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute is an “expert” cited by groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association, among others in the Religious Right. While his claims have been consistently discredited, Cameron is still a favorite of opponents of gay rights.

And if you'll mosey on over to Wikipedia, you can read the long list of organizations that have discredited Cameron's work.

>> What I asked for was evidence in support of these assertions, from your NOM post:

1. ".....conflating being an LGBT individual with being a pedophile...."

2. "..... using discredited research to spew false information about LGBT....."

3. ".......the FRC has definitely done that"

Let's see if you have brought any.

"....since NOM is almost certainly not going to allow my rebuttal to my comment to be posted so it looks like there is no evidence, AND since I could not easily find an e-mail address with which to contact you privately, I will post the following here."

>> Understood.

"Perkins repeated the FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia,[29] saying that "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children."

There's your pedophilia link.

>> First of all, there is no link. Please provide it.

Nothing at all in the above assertion concerning the danger homosexuality poses to kids has yet been debunked, or even addressed, by you.

"Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute is an “expert” cited by groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association, among others in the Religious Right. While his claims have been consistently discredited, Cameron is still a favorite of opponents of gay rights."

>> A nothing burger. An evidence-free pair of sentences.

Let me repeat, it was *evidence* requested, not repetition of the assertions.

So far you have again failed to provide any, and I am certainly not censoring you.

That's three times I have asked, btw.

"And if you'll mosey on over to Wikipedia, you can read the long list of organizations that have discredited Cameron's work."

>> I am not interested in moseying on over to Wikipedia.

I am interested in determining whether you are capable of responding to a legitimate request for evidence in support of your assertions.

FRC, called a "hate group" by an SPLC operative just weeks earlier, is attacked by a crazed terrorist who, having pulled a gun on an unarmed man, shouts "I don't like your politics", and pulls the trigger.

Now.

You derive from this barely-averted mass slaughter a gleeful expectation of further incitement against the victim.

A right is a moral power, that is, an ability of a person to choose to act upon what he can reasonably expect from other persons in relationship with him because he has a duty to these persons and they have duties to him.

What duty does a homosexual have to another homosexual or his natural family or the entire human race that gives him the right to contract a base animal union with another homosexual and call it "marriage"?